2009/3/9 Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>:
> This is a major difference between the hechsher industry in the USA and
> elsewhere. ?In the USA the manufacturers pay for hechsherim, and put the
> symbol on their products, expecting that it will increase their sales.
> Overseas the manufacturer does the heechsher a favour by letting it inspect
> the premises, and in return for a listing in the kosher list it agrees to
> notify the hechsher of any change in recipe. ?The tiny percentage of Jews
> who will buy the product is very low on the manufacturer's mind, and not
> a factor in his calculations.
Overseas != E"Y, of course :)
On a more serious note; does anyone know why this is? Even in the US,
it's well known that consumers of kosher products include Jews, many
Muslims, people who believe it's somehow healthier, and those with
allergies who know that they can rely on a kosher symbol as proof that
there will be know problematic ingredients (although in certain cases
people with very severe allergies will react to things that al pi
halacha are treated as they do not exist).
Do these groups not exist overseas? I can't imagine that European
Muslims are less "frum" than their American bretheren; do they have
their own hallal lists that they use? Is there such a chashash of
anti-semitism that having a symbol suggesting to the wackos that there
was a payment of an extortionist "kosher tax" that manufacturers don't
want to do it?
-- Mike Miller
Ramat Bet Shemesh

<<Given A Jew may not mevateil issur lechatchilah
And a corollary
A Jew may not ask a Gentile to mevateil issur on his behalf.
Q1: what if a Gentile in the course of producing X (eg gelatin)
Is mevateil issur lechatchilah but lav davka for a Jew. If a Jew later
buys it, is it huvrar lemafreI'a?
Q2: Does putting the Gentile process under a kosher supervising agency
tantamount to being mevateil the issur lechatchila for the eventual
Jewish purchaser?>>
RMF has a teshuva allowing ice cream even though it contains small
amounts of Gelatin which might be davar hamamid.
Thus, it was obvious to RMF that once it is batel by the company
one can buy it lechatchila and give a hechsher,
BTW why are you so sure you can't ask a goy to be mevatel. Amira
le-nochri is a halacha in shabbat not necessarily in all halachot
--
Eli Turkel

R' Michael Makovi wrote:
<Indeed, kol b'isha could theoretically include even mere speaking (as
Rabbenu Hananel and others indeed ruled)
This is related to inyana d'yoma. The Gemara in Erchin 3a writes that
hakol k'sheirim likros hamegilla is marbeh women that they can read
the megilla. Rashi writes explicitly that women can read for men. It
is clear from Rashi that there is no problem of Kol Isha with a women
reading the megilla. In fact, reading the Megilla is worse then
speaking as the megilla is read with the trop which is a form of music
and yet women can still read for men.

Michael M:
> The Aruch haShulhan ruled that since we are accustomed to seeing women's
> hair, it is no longer an impediment to the saying of Shema; but all
> the same, he ruled that uncovering the hair is still prohibited. But
> if people are used to seeing their hair, and it is no enticement (vis
> a vis Shema), then why is it still prohibited in the first place?
Here is a simple piece of logic.
The Torah teaches that ufara es rosha implies women must cover their hair.
As a by product men were not exposed to women's hair thereby it was in
fact a distraction during shema etc.
Now we live in a dor where pritzus is more common and men are now
desensitized to this distraction
So there are two points:
The requirement to cover the hair remains as an obligation for the women
AND
Since men have been desnsitized to it by now; therefore it is no longer
ruled a distraction by poskim.
Purim Samei'ach
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Mike Miller wrote:
> 2009/3/9 Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>:
>> This is a major difference between the hechsher industry in the USA and
>> elsewhere. In the USA the manufacturers pay for hechsherim, and put the
>> symbol on their products, expecting that it will increase their sales.
>> Overseas the manufacturer does the heechsher a favour by letting it inspect
>> the premises, and in return for a listing in the kosher list it agrees to
>> notify the hechsher of any change in recipe. The tiny percentage of Jews
>> who will buy the product is very low on the manufacturer's mind, and not
>> a factor in his calculations.
>
> Overseas != E"Y, of course :)
In EY the manufacturers are mostly Jewish themselves, so the whole
question doesn't apply. They certainly can't be allowed to deliberately
add small amounts of issur to their products.
> On a more serious note; does anyone know why this is? Even in the US,
> it's well known that consumers of kosher products include Jews, many
> Muslims, people who believe it's somehow healthier, and those with
> allergies
But Jews are the most important component of that number. And the goyim
who prefer kosher are mostly Xians with various notions about kashrut
being a diet with Hashem's endorsement, etc. In most other countries
there is a shortage both of Jews and of Xians, so there's no real market
in kashrut. The Moslems far outnumber the Jews and have their own
arrangements; they tend to be relatively mekil on such questions as
relying on ingredient lists.
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher

> Given A Jew may not mevateil issur lechatchilah
> And a corollary
> A Jew may not ask a Gentile to mevateil issur on his behalf.
RRW note:
Well technicallly you can ask a Gentile to do it but the product would
be assur see SA Yd 99:5 vkChen lemi shenisbatel bishvilo
See ba'eir hetev 10
Eli
> RMF has a teshuva allowing ice cream even though it contains small
> amounts of Gelatin which might be davar hamamid.
> Thus, it was obvious to RMF that once it is batel by the company
> one can buy it lechatchila and give a hechsher,
> BTW why are you so sure you can't ask a goy to be mevatel. Amira
> le-nochri is a halacha in shabbat not necessarily in all halachot
See note above
Reductio ad absurdum:
If Eli is correct then
In the case of had bitrei
Let Gentile mix up 1 neveilah with 2 kesheira pieces lechatchila.
Guard him from bringning in extra meat from outside and you can make a
ta'aroves with bittul lechatchila.
Good Purim
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

> It doesn't necessarily mean natural law in distinction to other Divine Action.
> R' Micha
According to Rambam, in "hakol bidei shamayim hutz miyirat shamayim",
the "hakol" (which is in G-d's hands) is natural law, and "yirat
shamayim" (which is not in G-d's hands) is all the actions of man,
which are either mutar or assur.
We've got an omission between the reisha and the seifa. The reisha is
natural law (in G-d's hands), and the seifa is man's actions (in man's
hands); pray tell, where is the mention of miracles and ad-hoc Divine
interventions? This ma'amar Hazal seems to be lacking something. One
could either emphasize the hakol, and say that truly, nothing at all
is in G-d's hands save natural law, or one can emphasize the hutz mi,
and say that the only thing G-d lacks control over is our deeds, but
that He does perform ad-hoc interventions.
Now, Rambam repeatedly speaks of how the ACTIONS of man are within
man's control, and how G-d controls man's ACTIONS insofar as He
instituted natural law. If Rambam is only speaking of man's ability to
do the deed, then perhaps indeed, Rambam is saying that while G-d
controls man's deeds insofar as He controls natural law, this doesn't
rule out G-d's controlling events in other ways. My stealing or giving
tzedaka is wholly within my hands and in His only insofar as natural
law is in His, but lightning, floods, and plagues of frogs are in a
totally different category, and perhaps He controls these NOT merely
by way of His initial institution of natural law, but rather, by some
more direct volitional manner.
But Rambam further says,
It is also necessary to take all the precautionary
measures laid down in the Law, such as,
"Thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof; that thou bring
not blood upon thy house", "lest he die in the battle",
"wherein shall he sleep?", and "no man shall take to pledge
the nether or the upper millstone", and many other
passages in regard to precautions found in the Law and
the Prophets.
Rambam is clearly extending even the RESULTS to our hands.
Moreover, Rambam says,
Thus, for instance, when a stone is thrown
into the air and falls to the ground, it is correct to say that
the stone fell in accordance with the will of God, for it is true
that God decreed that the earth and all that goes to make it
up, should be the centre of attraction, so that when any part
of it is thrown into the air, it is attracted back to the centre.
What was the action which the man did? Clearly, his action was
throwing the stone into the air; if Rambam wanted only to emphasize
that man's actions are within his power, Rambam could have emphasized
that man can freely throw the stone up, and stop there. Rambam had no
need to mention the stone's falling back down, if all he is concerned
with is that the initial deed is in man's control. Obviously, Rambam
is extending even the RESULT of the deed to man's control.
However, you may object: even if I am correct, that Rambam is
extending our free will even to the results of our deeds, and not
merely to the deeds themselves, perhaps, nevertheless, the same
results are also occasionally done by G-d Himself. For example,
someone may fall off a roof because ploni forgot to build a parapet,
but all the same, someone may fall off the roof become G-d stam caused
him too. That is, even if our failure to build a parapet causes
someone to fall off a roof, not every instance of falling off a roof
is due to failure to build a parapet.
But if so, what do we make of the following passage?
The Rabbis expatiate very much upon this subject in the Midrash
Koheleth and in other writings, one of their statements in
reference to this matter being, "Everything follows its natural
course". In everything that they said, you will always find that
the Rabbis (peace be unto them!) avoided referring to the Divine
Will as determining a particular event at a particular time.
Moreover, Rambam went to great lengths to be naturalistic, even going
so far as to say that all miracles were pre-instituted at creation,
and are not ad-hoc volitional acts of G-d. Rambam repeats this on Avot
5:5. If "EVERYTHING follows its natural course", and if the Rabbis
avoided referring events to ad-hoc Divine Will, and even miracles are
not ad-hoc interventions, clearly this excludes the notion that in
addition to our free will (which G-d does not interfere with), that
G-d ALSO performs ad-hoc actions of His own.
End of that subject, onto another one.
I said that according to Manekin, Novel Will has nothing to do with
intellect, whereas Divine Providence is based davka on intellect. R'
Micha objected:
> That's a very hard position to support. Will is something Intellect has.
> Basic Aristotilian physics: Intellect has Will
> ...
> ...
> And chap 18 [of the Moreh] includes: "For it is the intensity of the Divine
> intellectual influence that has inspired the prophets, guided the good
> in their actions, and perfected the wisdom of the pious."
>
> R' Micha
Sorry. Let me clarify my intent. My point was that Manekin's Novel
Will has nothing to do with the RECIPIENTS' intellect. Obviously,
everything G-d does is in accordance with His will and His intellect
(which are actually one and the same thing, but...). My point,
however, was that while Rambam's Divine Providence is only for those
RECIPIENTS with perfected intellect, Novel Will would be different.
The people of Sodom could have all been raving idiots, and they still
would have been destroyed by G-d's Novel Will, due to their sins.
Now, one could say that if the Sodomites were idiots (and in a
Maimonidean sense, they were, since only an ignoramus who doesn't
appreciate G-d would ever sin), then they were destroyed, not because
G-d destroyed them, but because they lacked Divine Providence (which
may be Ralbag's Divinely proffered smart tips to proper living, or
whatever), and they destroyed themselves.
I myself made this same point with regard to the Letter to Marseilles,
at http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/2009/02/maimonidean-rati
onalism-part-3-letter.html:
Rambam says we lost the commonwealth because we didn't learn the art
of war, but rather learned astrology. The reliance on astrology and
segulot stultified our minds and turned us from practical efficacious
endeavors. Had we followed the Torah's prohibition of astrology, we'd
have instead learned practical warfare, and we'd have defeated the
Romans in battle. Thus, the prohibition of astrology, contained its
own intrinsic naturalistic punishment. G-d punished us, insofar as He
didn't help us.
It is worth noting that Rabbi Henkin, in Equality Lost, for a reason
having nothing to do with Rambam, also suggests that the Second Temple
fell, not due to G-d's punishing us actively (sinat hinam, he says, it
not a severe enough averah to merit this), but only due to His
passively not protecting us, withdrawing His active protection; sinat
hinam is only bad enough to merit His withdrawing His protection.
Rav Hirsch says likewise, but with regard to the First Temple as well:
the historians mock the Tanach and say the Temple fell due to
naturalistic reasons, and Rav Hirsch replies, "Precisely!". According
to Rav Hirsch, the miracle was not that the Temple fell, but rather,
that the Temple stood as long as it did; naturally, the Temple should
have (given Near Eastern politics and warfare) fallen hundreds of
years before it did. All G-d in 586 BCE did was withdraw His
Providence.
Indeed, R' Micha says,
> [S]ince Sedom was evil, then the Rambam's reasoning leads one to
> conclude it was cast off to hashgachah kelalis because of a lack of
> intellectual perfection. Therefore its destruction had to be part of a
> general rule.
This may very well be the case. However, if Manekin is correct, then
alternatively, even if the Sodomites WERE idiots, and Divine
Providence dictated that G-d sit back and watch whatever will just
happen to happen to them, nevertheless, Novel Will would permit G-d to
take direct action against them.
Michael Makovi

R' Micha said,
> I think the establishment of minhag takes consensus, not (as RMM
> suggests) majority. It's not a matter of formal vote, but eventually
> norms emerge.
I'd agree. I was overly simplistic, bombastic even, when I suggested
the formal vote. That's the problem with electronic communication;
tone of voice and gesticulations get lost. According to Wired, at
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/02/70179, people
understand each other's tones in email, FIFTY percent of the time. So
if you're not sure whether someone is angry or joking in an email,
rolling dice will serve you just as well.
The point is that I emphasize minhag haMakom over minhag Avot, and the
Spanish refugees (rather than carrying a minhag Avot that is
obligatory in any place irrespective of minhag haMakom, rather)
transplanted their minhagim to a new makom, and made the new makom's
minhag be the same as the old makom.
Thus, in America (and dati leumi communities in Israel), if everyone
is merely following minhag Avot, and there is no minhag haMakom, then,
in reality, everyone has a right to do whatever he pleases, as far as
minhag goes.
Of course, there may be minhag haMakom in some practices, and not in
others. Perhaps there is no minhag haMakom regarding kitniyot (thus,
the American Sefaradim aren't sinning), but there is indeed a minhag
haMakom to say the bracha for the State of Israel.
Michael Makovi

On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 10:40pm EST, R Gershon Dubin wrote Areivim:
: Kol haposhet yad only means, AIUI, for oneself. Not for a mosad, not
: even for a third party evyon.
It also means someone claiming poverty. Not someone collecting for
themselves for something other than need. If the guy says he's in need,
even it's dei machsero for a former gevir, give him. But if it's because
he wants to start learning full time, his desire to learn doesn't make
him an evyon.
Kol haposheit means not requiring an ishur, trusting everyone. "Ein
bodekim bema'os Purim". During the rest of the year, we have to give
anyone we're sure needs the money. You can't say that I'm supporting
Re'uvein and therefore I can turn Shim'on away without even a perutah. If
you acknowledge that Shim'on is actually needy. (Rama YD 249:4, although
it's implied in the SA as well.) This is why Chazal tell us to thank
the fakers, since they give us the heter not to give to an unknown
person.
Tzarich iyun if you can give a shaveh perutah of human contact. The SA
seems to say only if you don't have the actual perutah.
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

Michael Poppers wrote:
>
> So you think you know when TE was established and why? :) Enjoy this
> timely article....
>
> http://www.beureihatefila.com/files/The_Basis_For_Taanis_Esther.pdf
Taanis Esther is the 13th of Adar, because only Esther fasted then.
The rest of the Jews were either fighting or had to be prepared to flee
if the fighting should go badly, so they were not allowed to fast. Only
Esther, who was safe in the palace, was allowed to fast, and surely she
did so, praying for the success of the Jewish forces.
I don't know what the source for this is, but this is what I was taught
in school, and it makes perfect sense.
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher

On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 01:52:09PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Taanis Esther is the 13th of Adar, because only Esther fasted then.
: The rest of the Jews were either fighting or had to be prepared to flee
: if the fighting should go badly, so they were not allowed to fast...
The Avudraham writes that "vayiqhalu haYhudim" refers to gathering
together for a taanis bafore fighting.
RMMS modified that idea in a sichah to say as RZS wrote, that they
intended to fast,
...
: I don't know what the source for this is, but this is what I was taught
: in school, and it makes perfect sense.
I was taught in school that the taanis is to commemorate the three days
of fasting before Esther went to see the king. However, since the taanis
ledoros couldn't be made on Pesach, they moved the zikaron to be adjacent
to Purim. This is the Rambam Taaniyuos 5:5, who ties it to Esther 9:31
"divrei hatzomos veza'aqasam".
This suggestion is explicitly rejected in the aforementioned Avudraham.
Also, Megillas Taanis only mentions Nicanor, and not Taanis Esther.
Which would make it hard to accept the notion that it was established
at the same time as Purim year 2 in the event described in Esther 9:31
(leqayeim es yemei haPurim ha'eilah referring to all three days, not
just Purim and Shushan Purim).
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger The waste of time is the most extravagant
mi...@aishdas.org of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RRWolpoe
>>
AIUI EY always had 18 and contracted binyan with matzmi'ach after minim
was added.
Either way, we know the contraction existed in Qallir's time because of
his q'rovos (qrovatz) on Purim which as been preserved.
>>
The following may very well be Purim Torah.
I once heard (I know, this is usually not a good introduction to a
reliable source) that Kallir purposely omitted a q'rova for the bracha
of "Et tzemach David" on Purim. Purim's hero came from Binyamin, as
did Shaul HaMelech. In light of the enmity between Shaul and David, it
was deemed unseemly to devote a q'rova to David HaMelech on Purim.
Saul Mashbaum

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:42 PM, R' Saul Mashbaum <saul.mashb...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> I once heard (I know, this is usually not a good introduction to a
> reliable source) that Kallir purposely omitted a q'rova for the bracha
> of "Et tzemach David" on Purim. Purim's hero came from Binyamin, as
> did Shaul HaMelech. In light of the enmity between Shaul and David, it
> was deemed unseemly to devote a q'rova to David HaMelech on Purim.
That's what the commentary in the Artscroll siddur states, but RNScherman
doesn't provide a source for this contention.
Joshua Meisner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090309/cdd8e346/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 07:06:27AM +0200, Michael Makovi wrote:
: The Aruch haShulhan ruled that since we are accustomed to seeing women's
: hair, it is no longer an impediment to the saying of Shema; but all
: the same, he ruled that uncovering the hair is still prohibited. But
: if people are used to seeing their hair, and it is no enticement (vis
: a vis Shema), then why is it still prohibited in the first place?
Because it's a gezeiras hakasuv from sotah. Bamidbar 5:18 assumes that
the sotah's hair is braided/covered, and thus needs uncovering as part
of the ceremony. See Bamidbar Rabba 9:16.
Wehn the norm is to follow the halakhah, then it's startling and
*consequently* sei'ar be'ishah ervah. IOW, the ervah is not the cause
of the issue, but an effect.
This also explains why sei'ar be'ishah ervah only applies to eishes
ish.
Also, it's easier in general to understand what's going on when you make
a point of noting when it speaks of lir'os and when the problem is
lehistakeil. Lehistakeil at a woman's little finger has a totally
different connotation than talking about seeing it.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 06:31:36 -0600 Michael Makovi
<mikewindd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Of course, there may be minhag haMakom in some practices, and not
>in others. Perhaps there is no minhag haMakom regarding kitniyot
>(thus, the American Sefaradim aren't sinning), but there is indeed
a
>minhag haMakom to say the bracha for the State of Israel.
Nitpick: I don't think the latter is a good example, for two
reasons. One, the State of Israel is relatively recent, I'm not
sure that we have any clear minhag in America regarding such a
bracha (certainly many kehilos don't say one). Second, this may be
a matter of halacha, not minhag. Certainly many of those who don't
say such a bracha would object on halachic grounds.
All of which is tangential to the point you are making.
--
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

From: D&E-H Bannett
Didn't some list members wonder at times about the unusual nusach in our
Boneh Yerushalayim brakha? We say, come back to Jerusalem and live in it as
promised and rebuild it soon ... and speedily prepare David's throne there.
Why does David appear here when the next b'rakha is specifically about
David.....
Why is this remnant of David in Boneh Yerushalyim? Was it in the original
Bavel nusach which had separate b'rakhot for Yerushalayim and David?
>>
Now, had you gone through the hakdomo of the sefer Al HaGeulah ve'al
HaTemurah (p.25) you would have seen that it quotes the Bach (OCh 118) who
discusses this very matter "...shehaya mefakpekim beNusach birchas
Velirushalayim..."...shehis'chil bevinyan Yerushalayim vesayem beChisei
Dovid - she'ein hap'sicha me'ein hachasima..."
The AHVH goes on "...vetamtsis devarav - deshapir haveh chasima me'ein
hap'sicha deBinyan yerushalayim veChisei Dovid chada milsa....she'ein anu
mevakshin al binyan yerushalayim - ela be'ofen sheyihye raui leKisei Dovid
- lo be'ofen achar.."
SBA

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
>> Overseas != E"Y, of course :)
>
> In EY the manufacturers are mostly Jewish themselves, so the whole
> question doesn't apply. ?They certainly can't be allowed to deliberately
> add small amounts of issur to their products.
I was refering to your comment that overseas, people rely on lists,
whereas in the US they look for symbols.
-- Mike Miller
Ramat Bet Shemesh
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 48
**************************************
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
avodah@lists.aishdas.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."